|
On March 03 2012 07:07 xDaunt wrote:
I would be incredibly disappointed if Rush apologized. Fortunately he is in a position where he doesn't have to, and I expect him not to.
You would be incredibly dissapointed if someone apologised for hurting someone by calling her a slut and prostitute? You really weren't kidding when you said that lawyers are shitty human beeings were you.
|
now, i don't want you to take this the wrong way, and this is NOT how i feel:
People point out his drug addiction / weight / viagra use etc because he's a fucking hypocrite to say the things he does about other people while having those things going on in his own life.
1. did rush ever make fun of someone for their weight or viagra use? did he ever make fun of someone for a drug addiction?
2. rush could easily say: "she's a hypocrite and a slut so i called her a slut." <--- don't agree with that reasoning but it seems to be the reasoning you are using here.
3. "i don't like what you do so i'm gonna do the exact same thing to you!" <----- imo, that's a terrible position to take.
|
On March 03 2012 07:13 DamnCats wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 07:07 xDaunt wrote:
I would be incredibly disappointed if Rush apologized. Fortunately he is in a position where he doesn't have to, and I expect him not to. Yea, it's great being able to say stupid shit with absolutely no consequences because you're a politician who isn't running for office, but for a bigger bank account. And by great I of course mean is one of the main reasons American politics are so fucking retarded. It's the Sarah Palin effect, the dumber shit you spew, the richer you get! What a great country.
This isn't really Limbaugh's doing though. If he was another classy Reihan Salam-style conservative, people would just listen to somebody else. Same goes with Palin.
The market gets what it wants.
|
On March 03 2012 07:19 KlaCkoN wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 07:07 xDaunt wrote:
I would be incredibly disappointed if Rush apologized. Fortunately he is in a position where he doesn't have to, and I expect him not to. You would be incredibly dissapointed if someone apologised for hurting someone by calling her a slut and prostitute? You really weren't kidding when you said that lawyers are shitty human beeings were you.
Actually, I said that female law students (though I'll include female attorneys as well) tend to be personally defective.
As for Rush's comment, there was nothing malicious about what he said. It was satirical, and very well-done satire at that. I have no problem with what he said. What I do have a problem with is all of these hypocritical liberals that are coming out of the woodwork and making much ado about nothing when these same people have no problem referring to tea party people as "tea-baggers" or making any number of derogatory comments about religious people or anyone else who happens to not be liberal.
User was warned for this post
|
I'm also just confused by Rush's statement. She had so much sex that she couldn't afford the contraception? Does Rush even understand how female contraception works?
On March 03 2012 07:07 xDaunt wrote:
I would be incredibly disappointed if Rush apologized. Fortunately he is in a position where he doesn't have to, and I expect him not to.
Uhm. What? I think you need to clarify this statement. "Fortunately"? You think women who fight for women's health should be called prostitutes and sluts? Edit: You think it was satire? What? Please explain this satire then. Not malicious? Are you for real?
I don't expect Rush to apologize either. He's just an attention whore and always has been. It would be Out of Character for him to apologize.
|
It was satirical, and very well-done satire at that.
rofl.
|
On March 03 2012 07:20 sc2superfan101 wrote:now, i don't want you to take this the wrong way, and this is NOT how i feel: Show nested quote +People point out his drug addiction / weight / viagra use etc because he's a fucking hypocrite to say the things he does about other people while having those things going on in his own life. 1. did rush ever make fun of someone for their weight or viagra use? did he ever make fun of someone for a drug addiction? 2. rush could easily say: "she's a hypocrite and a slut so i called her a slut." <--- don't agree with that reasoning but it seems to be the reasoning you are using here. 3. "i don't like what you do so i'm gonna do the exact same thing to you!" <----- imo, that's a terrible position to take.
I'll elaborate on what I meant.
Your post:
all this outrage against him using the word "slut" is especially funny when it's thrown by people who have made fun of rush for his weight, his drug addiction, his perscription to viagra, his hearing loss, his wife, etc.
edit: apparently it's ok to call people retarded, stupid, idiots, etc.
but when rush calls someone a name, it's suddenly the end of the world...
seemed to imply that people have been saying all of these mean things about Limbaugh for years and all of the sudden he makes one comment calling someone a slut, and people start freaking out. Which would be totally hypocritical of them.
In reality, Limbaugh has been saying nasty things about other people pretty much the entire time he's been on air. When he was becoming popular he was always talking about crackheads and welfare drug addicts. Then, years later, it came out that he was a drug addict himself. That's probably the most popular example of his hypocrisy. I have no idea if he's ever made fun of somebody's weight or not.
That's all I'm saying, that Limbaugh isn't some innocent victim here. He talked shit, and people said shit back. As far as I'm concerned, that's fine. You can say people shouldn't respond in kind, and that's fine too. But to people who say that, I hope they are equally critical of Limbaugh himself, as he has been saying these kind of things for decades now.
|
these same people have no problem referring to tea party people as "tea-baggers" or making any number of derogatory comments about religious people or anyone else who happens to not be liberal.
Don't forget "country hicks," "people who are destroying the country," "people that are controlled by the top 1% wealthy Republican donors," and others.
To the topic, Tea Party/Conservative vote still splitting amongst the three. Santorum because he comes off as more principled and real beside Romney, but lacks some conservative principles in his religious stances (See Ann Coulter's recent article). Romney because he aint the worst a voting conservative could end up with, but still has a lingering stench from his continued defense of Romneycare in the face of his promise to repeal Obamacare (Affordable Health Care for America Act). Newt's been running a pretty lousy campaign apart from a couple good debate appearances, not really touting a conservative line but going for personal attacks even if its criticizing Romney like a Democrat would (wealth line, etc).
|
On March 03 2012 07:26 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 07:19 KlaCkoN wrote:On March 03 2012 07:07 xDaunt wrote:
I would be incredibly disappointed if Rush apologized. Fortunately he is in a position where he doesn't have to, and I expect him not to. You would be incredibly dissapointed if someone apologised for hurting someone by calling her a slut and prostitute? You really weren't kidding when you said that lawyers are shitty human beeings were you. Actually, I said that female law students (though I'll include female attorneys as well) tend to be personally defective. As for Rush's comment, there was nothing malicious about what he said. It was satirical, and very well-done satire at that. I have no problem with what he said.
True comedy is calling a random member of the public a 'slut' and a 'prostitute'.
|
On March 03 2012 07:30 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 07:07 xDaunt wrote:
I would be incredibly disappointed if Rush apologized. Fortunately he is in a position where he doesn't have to, and I expect him not to. Uhm. What? I think you need to clarify this statement. "Fortunately"? You think women who fight for women's health should be called prostitutes and sluts?
Let's just be clear: Rush did not say "that girl is a slut for having lots of sex." She came to Congress to ask for a new law that had someone else pay for her contraception and birth control pills. She essentially was asking for someone else to help foot the bill for the supplies that she needed to engage in her sexual habits. In other words, she's asking for other people to pay for her sexual habits, or, more bluntly, for her to have sex. That's where the slut thing came from. I think it's a very amusing and clever take on the situation.
Again, this isn't about feminine rights or health. This is about getting a handout from the federal government, or, more accurately, having the government mandate that someone else give you a handout. Keep this in mind: this girl went to Georgetown of her own volition. She testified that she knew it was a Catholic institution and that she looked at the health care program before going there. She knowingly went there, and is now whining about how expensive birth control is because the school doesn't provide it. So instead of sucking it up, she is asking the government to fix this problem for her by encroaching upon the rights and liberties of other people. And this girl is a heroine? Why does no one else see how fucked up this is?
|
On March 03 2012 07:26 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 07:19 KlaCkoN wrote:On March 03 2012 07:07 xDaunt wrote:
I would be incredibly disappointed if Rush apologized. Fortunately he is in a position where he doesn't have to, and I expect him not to. You would be incredibly dissapointed if someone apologised for hurting someone by calling her a slut and prostitute? You really weren't kidding when you said that lawyers are shitty human beeings were you. Actually, I said that female law students (though I'll include female attorneys as well) tend to be personally defective. As for Rush's comment, there was nothing malicious about what he said. It was satirical, and very well-done satire at that. I have no problem with what he said. What I do have a problem with is all of these hypocritical liberals that are coming out of the woodwork and making much ado about nothing when these same people have no problem referring to tea party people as "tea-baggers" or making any number of derogatory comments about religious people or anyone else who happens to not be liberal.
Yes and then you expanded it to include males as well by making the post you did :p
Personal insults delivered from a position of power does not make for satire, it just makes you a douche.
If say Jon Stewart ever pulled up a picture of a random person, named him, and then started talking about what a retarded redneck he is you might have a point when you say "but those nasty liberals are just as bad!!" but it has never and will never happen. Wonder why.
|
On March 03 2012 07:44 KlaCkoN wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 07:26 xDaunt wrote:On March 03 2012 07:19 KlaCkoN wrote:On March 03 2012 07:07 xDaunt wrote:
I would be incredibly disappointed if Rush apologized. Fortunately he is in a position where he doesn't have to, and I expect him not to. You would be incredibly dissapointed if someone apologised for hurting someone by calling her a slut and prostitute? You really weren't kidding when you said that lawyers are shitty human beeings were you. Actually, I said that female law students (though I'll include female attorneys as well) tend to be personally defective. As for Rush's comment, there was nothing malicious about what he said. It was satirical, and very well-done satire at that. I have no problem with what he said. What I do have a problem with is all of these hypocritical liberals that are coming out of the woodwork and making much ado about nothing when these same people have no problem referring to tea party people as "tea-baggers" or making any number of derogatory comments about religious people or anyone else who happens to not be liberal. Yes and then you expanded it to include males as well by making the post you did :p Personal insults delivered from a position of power does not make for satire, it just makes you a douche. If say Jon Stewart ever pulled up a picture of a random person, named him, and then started talking about what a retarded redneck he is you might have a point when you say "but those nasty liberals are just as bad!!" but it has never and will never happen. Wonder why.
What do you think Keith Olbermann did (and probably still does on Gore's network) and Ed Schultz does?
|
How is that clever? It's just common youtube commentary retoric. No effort to make a intelligent discussion while perfectly coming off as an ass. It is a bit amusing though I give you that (probably not for the same reasons you think).
|
On March 03 2012 07:41 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 07:30 DoubleReed wrote:On March 03 2012 07:07 xDaunt wrote:
I would be incredibly disappointed if Rush apologized. Fortunately he is in a position where he doesn't have to, and I expect him not to. Uhm. What? I think you need to clarify this statement. "Fortunately"? You think women who fight for women's health should be called prostitutes and sluts? Let's just be clear: Rush did not say "that girl is a slut for having lots of sex." She came to Congress to ask for a new law that had someone else pay for her contraception and birth control pills. She essentially was asking for someone else to help foot the bill for the supplies that she needed to engage in her sexual habits. In other words, she's asking for other people to pay for her sexual habits, or, more bluntly, for her to have sex. That's where the slut thing came from. I think it's a very amusing and clever take on the situation. Again, this isn't about feminine rights or health. This is about getting a handout from the federal government, or, more accurately, having the government mandate that someone else give you a handout. Keep this in mind: this girl went to Georgetown of her own volition. She testified that she knew it was a Catholic institution and that she looked at the health care program before going there. She knowingly went there, and is now whining about how expensive birth control is because the school doesn't provide it. So instead of sucking it up, she is asking the government to fix this problem for her by encroaching upon the rights and liberties of other people. And this girl is a heroine? Why does no one else see how fucked up this is?
Yes, and if that is what she said, then that would at least make some sense. The fact is that she went there to talk about one of her friends that had a medical condition that was treated with contraception (ovarian cysts or something), but was having trouble footing the bill for it, because contraception wasn't covered under her health insurance. She wanted health insurance to cover women's health! HOW DARE SHE!!
It makes even less sense if you actually think about it. It's female contraception. The price doesn't go up depending on how much sex you have.
It's not amusing. It's nonsensical and it demeans women's health as unimportant.
It's "amusing" in the way that a mob jeers and laughs at a victim. I do not laugh at people degrading each other people's dignity like that. Disgusting.
|
On March 03 2012 07:41 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 07:30 DoubleReed wrote:On March 03 2012 07:07 xDaunt wrote:
I would be incredibly disappointed if Rush apologized. Fortunately he is in a position where he doesn't have to, and I expect him not to. Uhm. What? I think you need to clarify this statement. "Fortunately"? You think women who fight for women's health should be called prostitutes and sluts? Let's just be clear: Rush did not say "that girl is a slut for having lots of sex." She came to Congress to ask for a new law that had someone else pay for her contraception and birth control pills. She essentially was asking for someone else to help foot the bill for the supplies that she needed to engage in her sexual habits. In other words, she's asking for other people to pay for her sexual habits, or, more bluntly, for her to have sex. That's where the slut thing came from. I think it's a very amusing and clever take on the situation. Again, this isn't about feminine rights or health. This is about getting a handout from the federal government, or, more accurately, having the government mandate that someone else give you a handout. Keep this in mind: this girl went to Georgetown of her own volition. She testified that she knew it was a Catholic institution and that she looked at the health care program before going there. She knowingly went there, and is now whining about how expensive birth control is because the school doesn't provide it. So instead of sucking it up, she is asking the government to fix this problem for her by encroaching upon the rights and liberties of other people. And this girl is a heroine? Why does no one else see how fucked up this is?
It's too god damn bad that instead of phrasing it like this he says it in the most incendiary and classless manner he can possibly come up with just to keep those dollars rolling in.
Although I still don't understand why they wouldn't want to provide birth control.* What's more expensive, birth control, or a pregnant person on your health plan? Pretty sure you don't have to be a math major to figure that out.
* Yes that was rhetorical, obviously the book of fairy tales they subscribe to tells them it should be like this.
|
On March 03 2012 07:47 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 07:44 KlaCkoN wrote:On March 03 2012 07:26 xDaunt wrote:On March 03 2012 07:19 KlaCkoN wrote:On March 03 2012 07:07 xDaunt wrote:
I would be incredibly disappointed if Rush apologized. Fortunately he is in a position where he doesn't have to, and I expect him not to. You would be incredibly dissapointed if someone apologised for hurting someone by calling her a slut and prostitute? You really weren't kidding when you said that lawyers are shitty human beeings were you. Actually, I said that female law students (though I'll include female attorneys as well) tend to be personally defective. As for Rush's comment, there was nothing malicious about what he said. It was satirical, and very well-done satire at that. I have no problem with what he said. What I do have a problem with is all of these hypocritical liberals that are coming out of the woodwork and making much ado about nothing when these same people have no problem referring to tea party people as "tea-baggers" or making any number of derogatory comments about religious people or anyone else who happens to not be liberal. Yes and then you expanded it to include males as well by making the post you did :p Personal insults delivered from a position of power does not make for satire, it just makes you a douche. If say Jon Stewart ever pulled up a picture of a random person, named him, and then started talking about what a retarded redneck he is you might have a point when you say "but those nasty liberals are just as bad!!" but it has never and will never happen. Wonder why. What do you think Keith Olbermann did (and probably still does on Gore's network) and Ed Schultz does?
Oh please provide an example of them insulting a named member of the public. That means not a media figure, not a politician and not a CEO or board member.
As I said the point is not as much the insult as the fact that it is delivered from a relative position of power.
|
On March 03 2012 07:48 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 07:41 xDaunt wrote:On March 03 2012 07:30 DoubleReed wrote:On March 03 2012 07:07 xDaunt wrote:
I would be incredibly disappointed if Rush apologized. Fortunately he is in a position where he doesn't have to, and I expect him not to. Uhm. What? I think you need to clarify this statement. "Fortunately"? You think women who fight for women's health should be called prostitutes and sluts? Let's just be clear: Rush did not say "that girl is a slut for having lots of sex." She came to Congress to ask for a new law that had someone else pay for her contraception and birth control pills. She essentially was asking for someone else to help foot the bill for the supplies that she needed to engage in her sexual habits. In other words, she's asking for other people to pay for her sexual habits, or, more bluntly, for her to have sex. That's where the slut thing came from. I think it's a very amusing and clever take on the situation. Again, this isn't about feminine rights or health. This is about getting a handout from the federal government, or, more accurately, having the government mandate that someone else give you a handout. Keep this in mind: this girl went to Georgetown of her own volition. She testified that she knew it was a Catholic institution and that she looked at the health care program before going there. She knowingly went there, and is now whining about how expensive birth control is because the school doesn't provide it. So instead of sucking it up, she is asking the government to fix this problem for her by encroaching upon the rights and liberties of other people. And this girl is a heroine? Why does no one else see how fucked up this is? Yes, and if that is what she said, then that would at least make some sense. The fact is that she went there to talk about one of her friends that had a medical condition that was treated with contraception (ovarian cysts or something), but was having trouble footing the bill for it, because contraception wasn't covered under her health insurance. She wanted health insurance to cover women's health! HOW DARE SHE!! It makes even less sense if you actually think about it. It's female contraception. The price doesn't go up depending on how much sex you have. It's not amusing. It's nonsensical and it demeans women's health as unimportant. It's "amusing" in the way that a mob jeers and laughs at a victim. I do not laugh at people degrading each other people's dignity like that.
Here's her testimony: http://www.whatthefolly.com/2012/02/23/transcript-sandra-fluke-testifies-on-why-women-should-be-allowed-access-to-contraception-and-reproductive-health-care/
No one is saying that women's health is unimportant. What people are saying is that it's not the job of the federal government to take care of women's health, or, in this case, mandating that third parties take care of women's health in ways that violate their rights and religious beliefs.
Have we really come to the point where the power of the federal government should be used to fix every ill in society? That's really what this argument is all about.
|
On March 03 2012 07:57 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 07:48 DoubleReed wrote:On March 03 2012 07:41 xDaunt wrote:On March 03 2012 07:30 DoubleReed wrote:On March 03 2012 07:07 xDaunt wrote:
I would be incredibly disappointed if Rush apologized. Fortunately he is in a position where he doesn't have to, and I expect him not to. Uhm. What? I think you need to clarify this statement. "Fortunately"? You think women who fight for women's health should be called prostitutes and sluts? Let's just be clear: Rush did not say "that girl is a slut for having lots of sex." She came to Congress to ask for a new law that had someone else pay for her contraception and birth control pills. She essentially was asking for someone else to help foot the bill for the supplies that she needed to engage in her sexual habits. In other words, she's asking for other people to pay for her sexual habits, or, more bluntly, for her to have sex. That's where the slut thing came from. I think it's a very amusing and clever take on the situation. Again, this isn't about feminine rights or health. This is about getting a handout from the federal government, or, more accurately, having the government mandate that someone else give you a handout. Keep this in mind: this girl went to Georgetown of her own volition. She testified that she knew it was a Catholic institution and that she looked at the health care program before going there. She knowingly went there, and is now whining about how expensive birth control is because the school doesn't provide it. So instead of sucking it up, she is asking the government to fix this problem for her by encroaching upon the rights and liberties of other people. And this girl is a heroine? Why does no one else see how fucked up this is? Yes, and if that is what she said, then that would at least make some sense. The fact is that she went there to talk about one of her friends that had a medical condition that was treated with contraception (ovarian cysts or something), but was having trouble footing the bill for it, because contraception wasn't covered under her health insurance. She wanted health insurance to cover women's health! HOW DARE SHE!! It makes even less sense if you actually think about it. It's female contraception. The price doesn't go up depending on how much sex you have. It's not amusing. It's nonsensical and it demeans women's health as unimportant. It's "amusing" in the way that a mob jeers and laughs at a victim. I do not laugh at people degrading each other people's dignity like that. Here's her testimony: http://www.whatthefolly.com/2012/02/23/transcript-sandra-fluke-testifies-on-why-women-should-be-allowed-access-to-contraception-and-reproductive-health-care/No one is saying that women's health is unimportant. What people are saying is that it's not the job of the federal government to take care of women's health, or, in this case, mandating that third parties take care of women's health in ways that violate their rights and religious beliefs. Have we really come to the point where the power of the federal government should be used to fix every ill in society? That's really what this argument is all about.
No. This is about how a woman wanting health insurance to cover women's health is told she, personally, is a slut and a prostitute.
And yes, it is demeaning to women's health because it implies that female contraception is all about sex.
|
On March 03 2012 07:53 KlaCkoN wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 07:47 xDaunt wrote:On March 03 2012 07:44 KlaCkoN wrote:On March 03 2012 07:26 xDaunt wrote:On March 03 2012 07:19 KlaCkoN wrote:On March 03 2012 07:07 xDaunt wrote:
I would be incredibly disappointed if Rush apologized. Fortunately he is in a position where he doesn't have to, and I expect him not to. You would be incredibly dissapointed if someone apologised for hurting someone by calling her a slut and prostitute? You really weren't kidding when you said that lawyers are shitty human beeings were you. Actually, I said that female law students (though I'll include female attorneys as well) tend to be personally defective. As for Rush's comment, there was nothing malicious about what he said. It was satirical, and very well-done satire at that. I have no problem with what he said. What I do have a problem with is all of these hypocritical liberals that are coming out of the woodwork and making much ado about nothing when these same people have no problem referring to tea party people as "tea-baggers" or making any number of derogatory comments about religious people or anyone else who happens to not be liberal. Yes and then you expanded it to include males as well by making the post you did :p Personal insults delivered from a position of power does not make for satire, it just makes you a douche. If say Jon Stewart ever pulled up a picture of a random person, named him, and then started talking about what a retarded redneck he is you might have a point when you say "but those nasty liberals are just as bad!!" but it has never and will never happen. Wonder why. What do you think Keith Olbermann did (and probably still does on Gore's network) and Ed Schultz does? Oh please provide an example of them insulting a named member of the public. That means not a media figure, not a politician and not a CEO or board member. As I said the point is not as much the insult as the fact that it is delivered from a relative position of power.
1. it's ok to be insulting to public figures? how is that even justifiable in any way?
2. she could be said to be a public figure, especially because she chose to go in front of congress and testify on a controversial topic with a sensationalist story.
|
On March 03 2012 07:59 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 07:57 xDaunt wrote:On March 03 2012 07:48 DoubleReed wrote:On March 03 2012 07:41 xDaunt wrote:On March 03 2012 07:30 DoubleReed wrote:On March 03 2012 07:07 xDaunt wrote:
I would be incredibly disappointed if Rush apologized. Fortunately he is in a position where he doesn't have to, and I expect him not to. Uhm. What? I think you need to clarify this statement. "Fortunately"? You think women who fight for women's health should be called prostitutes and sluts? Let's just be clear: Rush did not say "that girl is a slut for having lots of sex." She came to Congress to ask for a new law that had someone else pay for her contraception and birth control pills. She essentially was asking for someone else to help foot the bill for the supplies that she needed to engage in her sexual habits. In other words, she's asking for other people to pay for her sexual habits, or, more bluntly, for her to have sex. That's where the slut thing came from. I think it's a very amusing and clever take on the situation. Again, this isn't about feminine rights or health. This is about getting a handout from the federal government, or, more accurately, having the government mandate that someone else give you a handout. Keep this in mind: this girl went to Georgetown of her own volition. She testified that she knew it was a Catholic institution and that she looked at the health care program before going there. She knowingly went there, and is now whining about how expensive birth control is because the school doesn't provide it. So instead of sucking it up, she is asking the government to fix this problem for her by encroaching upon the rights and liberties of other people. And this girl is a heroine? Why does no one else see how fucked up this is? Yes, and if that is what she said, then that would at least make some sense. The fact is that she went there to talk about one of her friends that had a medical condition that was treated with contraception (ovarian cysts or something), but was having trouble footing the bill for it, because contraception wasn't covered under her health insurance. She wanted health insurance to cover women's health! HOW DARE SHE!! It makes even less sense if you actually think about it. It's female contraception. The price doesn't go up depending on how much sex you have. It's not amusing. It's nonsensical and it demeans women's health as unimportant. It's "amusing" in the way that a mob jeers and laughs at a victim. I do not laugh at people degrading each other people's dignity like that. Here's her testimony: http://www.whatthefolly.com/2012/02/23/transcript-sandra-fluke-testifies-on-why-women-should-be-allowed-access-to-contraception-and-reproductive-health-care/No one is saying that women's health is unimportant. What people are saying is that it's not the job of the federal government to take care of women's health, or, in this case, mandating that third parties take care of women's health in ways that violate their rights and religious beliefs. Have we really come to the point where the power of the federal government should be used to fix every ill in society? That's really what this argument is all about. No. This is about how a woman wanting health insurance to cover women's health is told she, personally, is a slut and a prostitute.
Oh boohoo, cry me a river. Don't worry about her. She's going to be well-rewarded for sensational testimony and weathering the wrath of Limbaugh. She'll be a liberal politician/operative within a few years and maybe even a media figure.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
